Purpose The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released a proposed protocol in 2015 to evaluate the vapor containment abilities of closed system transfer device technologies in order to provide meaningful comparisons between products. This study assessed the vapor containment ability of closed system transfer devices when following the methodology as outlined by the 2015 NIOSH proposed protocol. Methods This study evaluated six closed system transfer device brands following the draft NIOSH vapor containment protocol. The testing evaluated each closed system transfer device brand during both compounding (Task 1) and administration (Task 2). Five pre-specified steps for each task were repeated for a total of four manipulations per device. The Thermo Scientific™ MIRAN SapphIRe XL Infrared Analyzer was used to detect isopropyl alcohol vapor levels after each step. Results For Task 1, two closed system transfer device products (PhaSeal™ and Equashield®) adequately contained the isopropyl alcohol vapor and passed the predefined testing criteria. The same two products, plus one additional product (ChemoLock™), contained the vapor for Task 2 manipulations. Based on the results of this study, only two out of the six closed system transfer device brands passed testing criteria for both tasks, functioning as truly closed systems. Conclusion To improve employee safety in chemotherapy preparation, closed system transfer devices that demonstrate no leakage should be the preferred choices of healthcare systems. In this study, PhaSeal™ and Equashield® proved to be adequately closed in both Task 1 and Task 2, while ChemoLock™ proved to be closed in Task 2 but not in Task 1. All other products failed both tasks when measuring for isopropyl alcohol vapor release.

Purpose: Due to critical shortages of intravenous diltiazem in 2018, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUWMC) adopted intravenous verapamil as an alternative. However, there is a paucity of data supporting the use of intravenous verapamil infusions for rate control in the acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of intravenous verapamil as compared with diltiazem for the acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias. Methods: This retrospective, case-control study compared patients who received verapamil infusions between June 1 and September 30, 2018, with patients who received diltiazem infusions between June 1 and September 30, 2017, at OSUWMC. Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and the presence of comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (≤40%). Results: A total of 73 patients who received at least 1 verapamil infusion and 73 patients who received at least 1 diltiazem infusion met inclusion criteria. The composite need for inotrope or vasopressor was similar for both groups (5% with verapamil versus 4% with diltiazem, P = .999). The rate of hypotension was similar between groups (37% versus 33% experiencing a systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, P = .603, and 27% versus 23% experiencing a mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg, P = .704), as was the rate of bradycardia (19% versus 18%, P = .831). The efficacy outcomes of this study were similar for both groups, with 89% of patients in the verapamil group and 90% of patients in the diltiazem group achieving a heart rate less than 110 beats per minute ( P = .785). Conclusion: Intravenous verapamil and diltiazem infusions had similar safety and efficacy outcomes when used for acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias in the institutional setting.

Purpose: Medications that require prior authorization can complicate the discharge planning process. This study implemented and evaluated a process for identifying and completing prior authorizations during the inpatient setting prior to patient discharge. Methods: A patient identification tool was developed within the electronic health record to alert the patient care resource manager of inpatient orders for targeted medications that frequently require prior authorization with the potential to delay discharge. A workflow process using the identification tool and flowsheet documentation was developed to prompt the initiation of a prior authorization, if necessary. Following hospital-wide implementation, descriptive data for a 2-month period was collected. Results: The tool detected 1353 medications for 1096 patient encounters over the 2-month period. The most frequent medications identified included apixaban (28.1%), enoxaparin (14.4%), sacubitril/valsartan (6.4%), and darbepoetin (6.4%). For the medications identified, there were 93 medications documented in the flowsheet data for 91 unique patient encounters. Of the 93 medications documented, 30% did not require prior authorization, 29% had prior authorization started, 10% were for patients discharged to a facility, 3% were for home medications, 3% were medications discontinued at discharge, 1% had prior authorization denied, and 24% had missing data. The most frequent medications documented in the flowsheet included apixaban (12%), enoxaparin (10%), and rifaximin (20%). Of the 28 prior authorizations processed, 2 led to a referral to the Medication Assistance Program. Conclusion: The implementation of an identification tool and documentation process can help improve PA workflow and discharge care coordination.

Biological products may be used to diagnose, prevent, treat, and cure diseases and medical conditions, including cancer. Biosimilar agents, approved under an abbreviated 351(k) pathway, continue to increase in number and market share for biologic agents, especially for cancer care. Although biosimilars offer the potential for improved access to care, their introduction to the marketplace has created significant disruption. It is imperative that health systems providing care to patients with cancer develop a well-defined process to address the challenges associated with biosimilars. This descriptive article outlines pharmacy considerations for biosimilars and describes the current practices at The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University. Biosimilars have and will continue to significantly impact oncology care. Organizations must understand the clinical, operational, and financial challenges associated with the use of these products.